Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SiYuan MCP Server

SiYuan MCP Server

by xgq18237
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

rename_file

Destructive

Rename a file in the workspace by providing the source path and the new desired path.

Instructions

重命名工作空间文件

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "newPath": "<newPath>"
    },
    "name": "rename_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes源路径
newPathYes目标路径

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description is minimal and adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations already convey (destructiveHint: true). It does not specify side effects, such as whether the operation overwrites existing files at the target path.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one phrase). While it is front-loaded, it lacks any structure or additional details that would earn its place for an agent to understand usage nuances.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple nature of the tool, the description could be sufficient, but it lacks details about path format constraints, overwrite behavior, or return values. With no output schema, agents lack guidance on what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with basic parameter descriptions ('源路径', '目标路径'), but the tool description adds no additional meaning. The baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage, but the descriptions are terse.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '重命名工作空间文件' translates to 'rename workspace file', which clearly states the action and the resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like rename_doc or rename_notebook, which also rename entities in the workspace.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rename_doc or rename_doc_by_id, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions for use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools